Ex Parte WobbenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310506944 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/506,944 04/28/2005 Aloys Wobben 970054.471USPC 8801 500 7590 02/26/2013 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER AMRANY, ADI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2836 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALOYS WOBBEN ____________ Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, 21-23, and 25-35 (App. Br. 2). Claims 7, 18, 20, and 24 were canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 1 follows: 1. An isolated electrical network, comprising: at least one first power generator coupled to a wind turbine to produce electrical power; at least one intermediate storage device to store electrical power coupled to the first power generator; a second generator coupled to an internal combustion engine; a direct current bus bar to feed the electrical power from the first power generator and the intermediate storage device into an alternating current network, power flow being only unidirectional from the direct current bus bar to the alternating current network; a direct current device coupled to the direct current bus bar to detect the electrical power required in the alternating current network; and a controller operable to: control electrical power provided by the wind turbine that is delivered to the alternating current network in response to the required electrical power in the alternating current network detected on the direct current bus bar by the direct current Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 3 device being less than the electrical power generated by the first power generator; control the electrical power provided by the intermediate storage device that is delivered to the alternating current network in response to the required electrical power in the alternating current network detected on the direct current bus bar by the direct current device being greater than the electrical power generated by the first power generator; and control electrical power provided by the second generator coupled to the internal combustion engine that is delivered to the alternating current network in response to the detected electrical power required in the alternating current network detected on the direct current bus bar by the direct current device being greater than the electrical power generated by the first power generator and provided by the intermediate storage device. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 19, 21-23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wichert (B. Wichert, PV-Diesel Hybrid Energy Systems for Remote Area Power Generation - A Review of Current Practice and Future Developments, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 1, No. 3, 209-228 (1997)) in view of Lundsager (PER LUNDSAGER AND JØRGEN CHRISTENSEN, MAIN RESULTS FROM RISØ'S WIND-DIESEL PROGRAMME 1984-1990, Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark 22-37 (December 1991)) and Da Ponte (U.S. Patent No. 6,175,217 B1) (Ans. 3-11). Claims 11-14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wichert in view of Lundsager, Da Ponte and De Zeeuw (W. J. De Zeeuw et al, On the Components of a Wind Turbine Autonomous Energy System, Proceedings of the International Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 4 Conference on Electrical Machines, Zurich, Swiss FED. INST. TECHNOLOGY, CH, vol.1, 193-196, XP001031999 (September 1984)) (Ans. 11-14). Claims 6 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wichert in view of Lundsager, Da Ponte, and Jaunich (U.S. Patent No. 6,605,880 B1) (Ans. 14-15). Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wichert in view of Lundsager, Da Ponte, and Offringa (EP 0046530) (Ans. 15). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3, et seq.). ISSUES Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s position present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of Wichert, Lundsager, and Da Ponte teaches or would have suggested “a direct current device coupled to the direct current bus bar to detect the electrical power required in the alternating current network,” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claim 19? ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious because “Wichert, Lundsager and Da Ponte do not teach Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 5 or suggest ‘a direct current device coupled to the direct current bus bar to detect the electrical power required in the alternating current network’” (App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that “[w]hile there may be some interdependence between the sensed voltage of sensor 18 and a load on the Da Ponte system, there is no explicit or inherent disclosure of a direct current device coupled to a direct current bus bar to detect power required in an alternating current network” (id. at 11) (emphasis omitted). Appellant sets forth the same arguments for independent claim 19 (id. at 14). The Examiner concluded, however, that “[t]he Da Ponte ‘dc device’ is represented by voltage sensor 18” (Ans. 16-17). The Examiner further concluded that Da Ponte teaches that the voltage sensor 18 is coupled to a direct current bus bar to detect the power required in an alternating current network: D]uring increases in AC load power demand, the DC/DC converter (12) prevents the demand from being supplied immediately by the first source (10). This allows the intermediate storage device (28) to discharge to supply power required by the AC network. Da Ponte states that this will cause the DC bus bar (VDC) voltage potential to fall. When the DC bus bar potential falls, the voltage sensor (18) detects the fall and controls the first source (10) to produce more power (id. at 17). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions and underlying findings of fact. Da Ponte discloses that “[w]hen the load power demand increases suddenly . . . the intermediate DC output is starved of power, causing the load to draw energy directly from the energy storage device 28 which augments the intermediate DC output. As energy is drawn from this device, the output of the device and hence the voltage VDC of the intermediate DC output will fall” (col. 5, ll. 11-21). Da Ponte further discloses that “the value Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 6 of VDC as detected by the first voltage sensor 18” (col. 5, ll. 22-25). In other words, Da Ponte teaches that the first voltage sensor 18 is coupled to a direct current bus bar and detects an increase in the AC load power demand, as required by claims 1 and 19. Appellant also contends that “even assuming that the measurement and control circuit 16 of Da Ponte could be used to detect the electrical power required in an alternating current network, the Office Action has provided no motivation or suggestion for modifying the systems disclosed in Wichert and/or Lundsager to include such a device” (App. Br. 11). Appellant argues that “even assuming that Da Pont or Lundsager disclose a system with only unidirectional flow from a direct current bus bar to an alternating current network, modifying the hybrid energy system of Wichert shown in Figure 1 by effectively replacing the bi-directional power flow with unidirectional power flow would change a basic principle of operation of that system (id. 12-13). The Examiner concluded, however, that Wichert and Da Ponte are analogous art and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the voltage sensor of Da Ponte in Wichert’s system to detect “load demand and use the demand for controlling the operation of a hybrid power supply” (Ans. 18). The Examiner also concluded that Wichert teaches that unidirectional power flow could be used in its hybrid energy system by disclosing embodiments having unidirectional power flow (id. at 19-20). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion and underlying findings of fact. Wichert and Da Ponte are analogous because they are both directed to the field of hybrid energy systems (see e.g., Wichert, Abstract; Da Ponte, Appeal 2010-009804 Application 10/506,944 7 Abstract). In addition, Wichert teaches sensing load demand and controlling the components of a hybrid power system in accordance with the sensed demand (pp. 218-221). Moreover, as explained supra, Da Ponte discloses a voltage sensor coupled to a DC bus bar for detecting load demand. Accordingly, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the voltage sensor device of Da Ponte in the system of Wichert so that Wichert’s system could perform its sensing function. Moreover, Wichert discloses two embodiments of hybrid power systems having unidirectional power flow (Figs. 2 and 3). That is, Wichert teaches that unidirectional power flow could be used in a hybrid power system without changing its principle of operation. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 19 as well as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 2-6, 8-17, 21-23, and 25-35) because Appellant did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for those dependent claims (see App. Br. 14-15). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-17, 19, 21- 23, and 25-35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation